Author: blass uri
Date: 04:49:57 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2000 at 07:13:40, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >On July 22, 2000 at 06:05:00, blass uri wrote: > >> >>It is not clear that programs are better than me in static evaluation in games >>but the opposite is also not clear and I believe that the evaluation of >programs is more comlicated than the evaluation of humans even if it is not >better. > >The evaluation of programs maybe consider more factors on average than >humans. But humans have an ability to concentrate better on the >important things in a position. If there is a kingside attack you >don't care about overall pawn structure. You concentrate on tactics >and king safety and try to refine that part of the evaluation. >And in other positions it's the other way around. To code that >ability to concentrate on the important things would be extremely >hard, I think, and this is a part of the evaluation function that >in programs is essentially blank. Suggestion: look at e.g. Crafty's >evaluation. Then think about what you do yourself. I would be >surprised if you still would think Crafty's evaluation is more >complicated, or better for that matter. (I'm talking about >static eval of course). There are cases that I am better in evaluating king attacks but not always. I remember a case when I avoided a move because I was afraid of king safety problems. I analyzed the position with programs after the game and found that they were not afraid of the problem and they were right and I simply overestimated the opponent's chances against my king. It is not clear to me that my static evaluation is better. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.